3 ms·
> I've never heard of a tech genius who also cared much about the qualities you mention. How about von Neumann, famous for always being in an impeccably tailor
by llimllib 13y ago
> I've never heard of a tech genius who also cared much about the qualities you mention.
How about von Neumann, famous for always being in an impeccably tailored suit? I hope he's genius enough for you.
You don't even have to go past the very first hackers to find ones that care about those qualities. There are many, many other examples.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Personal_life
> Von Neumann took great care over his clothing, and would always wear formal suits, once riding down the Grand Canyon astride a mule in a three-piece pin-stripe. Mathematician David Hilbert is reported to have asked at von Neumann's 1926 doctoral exam: "Pray, who is the candidate's tailor?" as he had never seen such beautiful evening clothes.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoIndeed! This is a great example, thanks.
- timr 13y agoYou should also stop and consider, for just a moment, that if the only stories that can convince you need to be famous, you're working in a very narrow space of human experience. It's a big world out there, and there are a lot of smart people who will defy your expectations.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoActually, it's not inherently about fame. It has to do with whether the hackers are skilled. Pg goes into why it's difficult to compare hacker skill in one of his essays, though I forget which. But the summary is that nobody knows who the most talented hackers are, because you have to work with them to know how talented they are. Therefore fame is the only metric that makes sense in this case to derive hard evidence. Fame is a proxy for many people having recognized their talent, and the original question was about talent.
- timr 13y agoFame is orthogonal to skill.
- Crake 13y agoWearing a nice suit != being obsessed with popularity, beauty, and fashion.